European ruling that ‘religious feelings’ trump free speech is a dangerous development according to an alarming new ruling from the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has ruled that Austria didn't breach a woman's right to freedom of speech when it convicted her for calling the prophet of Islam a paedophile.

A 47-year-old woman from Vienna, identified only as E.S., claimed during two public seminars in 2009 that the Prophet Muhammad's marriage to six-year old Aisha, which was consummated when she was nine – was akin to pedophilia.

For stating this, she was subsequently convicted of 'disparaging religious doctrines' in a manner capable of 'arousing justified indignation'.

Woman calling Prophet Mohammed a paedophile has conviction upheld by European courtA EUROPEAN court has ruled insulting religion is a criminal offence after a woman who called the Prophet Mohammed a paedophile had her conviction upheld.

All over Europe, an iron veil is descending.EDITI wrote "European Court of (In)Justice in error, it's the European Court of Human Rights. We're struggling to get out of the former but I think we're stuck with the latter, thanks to Blair.

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

Free speech is no longer a "human right" it seems, and even factual accuracy is no defence when it comes to "religious feelings". This is a terrible judgement and opens the door to all kinds of nonsense... Soon we will get Muslims in Austria or Germany complaining that they are offended by people eating pork sausages in the streets, by Christmas decorations, by the ringing of bells, by the sale of alcohol....

Are we banning all this too? Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 and had sex with her when she was 9. Mohammed sucked the penises of Hassan and Hussein, two little boys. This is what we read in MUSLIM historical sources. If they can mention this so can I.

And many Muslims see Mohammed's actions, as described in these sources as normative to their behaviour today. So this court in effect puts the "feelings" of Muslims over the need of children to be protected from predatory men, and they should be ashamed for doing that.

I hope after our departure from the EU, we will also consider if we want these kinds of judgements to bear influence on our judicial system.

UKIP Leader Slams ‘Blasphemy Law by the Back Door’ as Euro Court Upholds Conviction for Disparaging Mohammed<snip>UKIP leader Gerard Batten, who has made a point of publicly criticising Islam since taking over from Nigel Farage’s short-lived successor, Henry Bolton, told Breitbart London that the European Court of Human Rights was introducing “a blasphemy law by the back door”.

“In the UK, the famous Oz magazine trial of 1971 had the great and good turning out in court to argue against the blasphemy laws, which were subsequently repealed. Since then it has been OK to say whatever you like about Jesus, but forty-seven years on, Mohammed is a different matter,” he observed.

“The Austrian legal system has decided to make another submission to Islam, and the ECHR has followed suit.”The European Court of Human Rights is technically not a European Union institution, but signing up to it is a requirement for would-be member-states, and Labour’s Charles Falconer suggested that “for all intents and purposes” it is “not possible” to be an EU member-state without submitting to the ECHR.(my emphasis)

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

The Atlantic article is rather wishy-washy.It says the complaint hinges on two things:

The substance of the complaint related to two comments E.S. made in the course of a discussion about Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha. He “liked to do it with children,” she asserted, adding, “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”

The second part could be rephrased:"56-year old men and 6-year old girls? What do we call that now, if not pedophilia?" Surely totally innocuous in the generality, so why so harmful in the particular? Just because it might have been commonplace in the 6th century doesn't make it acceptable now and certainly not a fitting role-model.The first one - doing it with one child is establlished, with no suggestion of doing it with displeasure, so only the only problem could be claiming the plural. Manfred mentions the sucking of little boys, and then there's "thighing". Neither seems to have been mentioned in her defense. Maybe someone can detail these to the extent that they can't simply be waved away with the magic wand of "false hadith"?

‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah